Re: The future of television
 

Am I correct in saying that if there is a problem today, it can never, ever, be sorted tomorrow?

We’ve been told that we cannot produce enough energy to support increased streaming, that streamers are not the future, that TV channels will go on forever, and what do we see?

The fact that not quite everyone gets broadband at the moment and that some have to put up with very low speeds is accepted, but why do you consider such things to be insurmountable? And as for electricity, that has long been scotched.

TV channels are set to be closed down, and increased content is going to the streamers instead. We are living in a world of change, where anything is possible.

---------- Post added at 19:59 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Where have I said I’m unhappy? Certainly, I dislike having to pay for TV channels when I get most content from streamers, but that is a temporary bugbear.

I am well aware that you also subscribe to streamers, which frankly appears to be a contradiction for you as you moan about them all the time.

I don’t know why it is that you cannot see that if I ditch the TV channels, I will be saving money! I have the Maxit package with Sky Cinema, by the way.

Your arguments sound desperate to me. Why are you telling me that some streamers also carry ‘live’ TV? Do you not realise that most people know that, and what’s it got to do with anything? We are in a transitional period and so of course, like Freely, we are being offered the choice. That will not last, of course, but I understand you cannot get your head around that.

As for your last comment, if TV channels are switched off, that choice will no longer exist. Just ask the ITV CEO!

Re: The future of television
 

No one (except you as a straw man argument) has ever said that - the difference of opinion is that most people see a blended future (streaming and TV channels), whilst you insist ad infinitum that "there can be only one!…

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2024/08/1.gif


Also, you seem to be missing out the PSB remit in this "streaming only" future…

Re: The future of television
 

Once we get past your Martin Luther King tribute act capitalism strikes any “anything is possible” rhetoric as it crashes to earth over the stumbling blocks of reality.

It’s not for others to prove known challenges it’s for you to offer solutions.

Broadband infrastructure in the UK will not support what you suggest in the timeframe you suggest it.

I’ve already pointed to the post where you indicate that you are unhappy with the status quo. It seems incredible that you seem to think that your own narrow viewing preferences should mandate the wholesale redesign of how the television market works.

I’m a rational consumer in the marketplace. I like Pepsi Max that doesn’t require me to preach the quality of PepsiCo branded products or call for the withdrawal from sale of competing products (essentially, what you are doing here.

Yet you don’t ditch them, despite telling us how awful they are. If you, a supposedly rational actor in the marketplace, maintain Maxit for “one or two” programmes what makes you think millions of other Virgin, or Sky, customers would not or could not do the same? To the tune of hundreds of millions in revenue.

Or that those who don’t want (or can’t afford) subscription services wouldn’t take their eyeballs (and thus advertising revenue) to competing offerings where a linear channel does close?

Once again it’d be helpful if you could define linear television.

I remain uncertain what the “transition” is if these multi-billion dollar companies are maintaining high costs to provide a service it’s unclear to me how they deliver shareholder arbitrarily withdrawing it. Occam’s razor suggests the costs are low, and it drives product value to end users who, evidence suggests, actually watch it in not insignificant numbers.

If your auntie had balls… as they say.

Re: The future of television
 

Apparently 97% of the UK now has access to some form of fibre broadband. Whether it's FTTC, VDSL, G. fast, cable, or FTTP.

As for energy. The National Grid have stated there is plenty of energy available for electric car charging so I'm sure it'll cope with some streaming:confused:

Re: The future of television
 

OB regularly claims he has “scotched” concerns over the power requirements of our national data infrastructure but that’s only because he flatly rejects stuff he can’t understand.

The power requirements of the internet are gigantic and growing, and IP is not the most energy-efficient way to deliver television - not by a long way.

National Grid has no immediate concerns about transport electrification because it believes it can expand capacity in line with new electric cars hitting the road. If we all had one tomorrow the grid would collapse. It has no concerns about IPTV as of right now, because there is no policy intent to switch off traditional free-to-air broadcast systems in the near future.

Some facts here, which OB will doubtless ignore as usual: https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=862

Re: The future of television
 

I understand completely the ‘blended future’ argument, but what you are missing is that this option incurs cost for the broadcasters and it is unnecessary. If that blended future choice is given to viewers, and is presented in a straight forward and intuitive manner via IPTV, the choice most people will gravitate to will be on demand, because that provides immediate gratification. Programmes can be accessed straight away rather than at a scheduled time and can be seen from the beginning rather than from part of the way through a series. That will lead to the ‘live’ TV, or whatever you want to label it, being switched off, simply because the broadcasters will no longer see the point in its continuation. Only government intervention is likely to change this.

As for the PSB remit, that is being reviewed. Why do you not believe that these things can be changed?

---------- Post added at 10:10 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

Exactly. I’m afraid some people cannot envisage how things can, and do, change. We are running circular arguments again, so I will bow out of this debate for now. This has just become a trolling thread, which is a shame, because we could have some very interesting debates on subjects such as these.

Re: The future of television
 

Hitchens' Razor springs to mind...

You state opinions as fact...

Re: The future of television
 

There’s nothing trolling about holding your claims up to scrutiny.

You have been invited, multiple times, to opine on what the broadband solution (both on availability and affordability) is yet you regularly decline offering a simplistic “things won’t stay the same forever”.

If the answer is “free broadband for all” that’s a far greater market intervention by Government than maintaining broadcast television (none of which is mandatory above the PSB requirements). All ‘traditional’ platforms offer a far greater number of services on a commercial basis through subscription and free to air models.

Re: The future of television
 

Never quite sure what the actual debate is on this thread so I'll try and cover what I think are the debates:

Recording. I agree with Old Boy to some extent (please don't adjust your streaming devices ;)) when he suggests that recording is on the way out. With the market leader Sky only marketing a non-recording device on its website and the Freeview recorder market reducing down to just two players (Humax and Manhattan) it's certainly declining in popularity and in danger of becoming niche.

Linear TV. However, the case for scheduled TV remains strong. Be that news, sports, content aimed at older viewers like Talking Pictures TV or the FAST channels.

Means of linear TV distribution. Some interesting discussions here. But I can't see Sky or Freeview/Freesat shuttering their satellite and aerial approach anytime soon.

Re: The future of television
 

Slight addendum to the above post.

Most TVs have USB sockets which allow recording to an appropriate device from digital broadcasts.

Re: The future of television
 

Tiny Pop, which went streaming only, was replaced by a reality channel about 6 months ago. Tiny Pop was on Virgin, but it's replacement reality channel wasn't.

Either GREAT! Real has not worked out in terms of viewers or Tiny Pop has suffered ratings wise with the transition to streaming because GREAT! Real is to close (it's programming has been/will be moved to GREAT! Action) in order to make way for the return of Tiny Pop.

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/sky-confir...treaming-only/

This is a surprising move and has happened before, does this indicate that viewers aren't yet ready to embrace a world where everything is streamed or on VOD??

Re: The future of television
 

Yes, fair point although anecdotal evidence suggests that they're not used for this that much. Open to correction.

Re: The future of television
 

https://rxtvinfo.com/2024/military-u...ies-in-europe/

[EXTRACTS]

Russian threat means Europe is looking at military usage for digital terrestrial TV frequency band. A move that would threaten not just TV, but also wireless communications and potential future mobile network usage.

UK broadcasters are pushing toward a mid-2035 terrestrial TV switch-off in favour of a streaming-only future. They’ve shown little or no interest in maintaining terrestrial TV in any form beyond this date, citing costs.

It appears that the terrestrial TV switch off May come earlier than I thought.

Re: The future of television
 

The 'future of television' mostly buffered for me during 90 mins of football at the weekend. Fortunately we're at home next week when I'll just be dependent on my own eyes :)

Re: The future of television
 

"

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...Sly/giphy.webp